"Tessy" only the beginning

[Doc Nickel]

this just in ---- eyewitnesses claim he was watching a Harry Potter movie just before the accident --- and no I don't make this stuff up - got a pretty good imagination but not that good...

-Probably more bullsh*t.

First, the car was at highway speed. The only possible witnesses that could have seen into his car would have been other drivers following closely along.

Second, the rumor I heard was he was watching it on the car's in-dash screen. I'm pretty sure it's close to impossible to get the dash screen to play a movie while the car is underway. For that matter, I'm pretty sure more than a few states make that illegal- those DVD players for kids and whatnot tend to go in the back seat, not where the driver can see and be distracted by it.

And if we really want to get nitpicky, why would a 40-year-old Ex-Navy EOD expert be watching Harry Potter? ( )

Doc.

[SteveF]

.............. At one point, electronic ignition and computerized fuel injection were considered unnecessarily complex and suspect. Now they are widely accepted and desired. ...................

Electronic ignition and computerized fuel injection will not cause my vehicle to crash into another vehicle.

Steve

[RB211]

The word skeptical infers that some one may not know how the technology works. Think most of us know how it works, and therefore don't like it.

[A.K. Boomer]

this just in ---- eyewitnesses claim he was watching a Harry Potter movie just before the accident --- and no I don't make this stuff up - got a pretty good imagination but not that good...

Edit; this is just the thing iv been bringing up all these years - more removal from the task - and in fact said that the texting will not just get longer and more in depth - and I quote myself here ---"people will actually be watching movies whilst they drive"

[danlb]

The opinions on this are pretty much split along "party lines".... Those with an unquestioning attraction to new technology tend to think it's a great idea and tout the supposed safety aspect.

Those who have a more "realistic" view (loaded term) tend to be skeptical, having seen too many "made so it just cannot fail" things fail in a big way.

That's funny, right there!

The opinions probably are split between those who are skeptical of new tech and those who are not, I will give you that. Which group is taking the "more realistic view" is debatable. At one point, electronic ignition and computerized fuel injection were considered unnecessarily complex and suspect. Now they are widely accepted and desired. There are a lot of similar examples of "that will never work" technology that is accepted mainstream now.

The companies that have done the most work on autonomous cars have not been car companies. I take comfort in that. I'd hate to see the quality efforts dismissed because of the failure of the less capable efforts of a few car companies.

Dan

[mattthemuppet]

why's everyone getting so exercised over this? ~80 people a day die on US roads, ~30,000 per year. If we go by Tesla's total autonomous miles travelled (47m) and the no. of fatalities per 100m vehicle miles in the US (1.08 in 2014), 1 death in 47m miles is neither here nor there. neither worse than average nor better and arguably impossible to say with a sample size of 1. On one hand far far too many drivers are distracted or bad at driving, one reason why people still have road accidents, on the other hand computers are never distracted or bad drivers, but also can't improvise outside their programmed parameters.

On the flipside, it'll be way easier to reprogram Tesla's autopilot to take into account these new (if rare) conditions that it will be to actually train people not to be poor drivers.

[J Tiers]

The opinions on this are pretty much split along "party lines".... Those with an unquestioning attraction to new technology tend to think it's a great idea and tout the supposed safety aspect.

Those who have a more "realistic" view (loaded term) tend to be skeptical, having seen too many "made so it just cannot fail" things fail in a big way.

And they tend also to recall that the very same companies doing the work have deliberately designed-in gas tanks that they knew would explode in crashes Ford), ignition switches that they knew would shut off in traffic (GM), and other safety issues, mostly because it was a tiny bit cheaper per car. They have cheated on emissions (VW/Porsche), installed unsafe air bags(nearly everyone), and so forth.

Aerospace companies have overlooked serious fatality-causing issues... Windows on DH Comet airliners, for one example, as well as engine mounts, etc. Even NASA has had fatality accidents right on the launch pad due to poor designs.

The software is not going to be perfect, neither is the hardware. And when it isn't it will cause accidents, injuries, and deaths.

[danlb]

I just saw this accident report on TV. Accidents tend to happen when a big rig pulls left across two lanes of high speed traffic. After a dozen deaths under similar conditions (over a matter of 10 or more years) a similar intersection was replaced by a half million dollar overpass. That was US 101 in Salinas.

Here's the drawing of the accident.

[Baz]

What happened to the favourite a few years ago of convoys with each car locked to the one in front so only the lead one needed a proper driver? That would seem to be a better intermediate step. As a start I'd like to see the sat nav linked the indicators to get proper signals at turns.

[garyhlucas]

I am a terrible driver, and I've always been a terrible driver. Not because of skills, l can and have driven lots of vehicles, trucks, machines, etc. However I am easily distracted and driving is boring so my mind wanders. I've been wearing a seatbelt since before most cars had them, my dad actually installed them. Can't see a good reason not to have a car that can drive itself with me being the backup system.

[lakeside53]

I agree. Crap happens to drivers with no "auto pilot" all the time. In those cases the drivers get blamed, not the software. The software will get better; will the drivers?

[danlb]

-Bullsh*t. The driver was- had to have been- not paying attention. Either he had simply laid his head back and was listening to music, or he'd actually fallen asleep like that one fellow somebody got pictures of a few weeks ago. Or he was reading a book, or playing with his phone or tablet, or screwing with the car's dash screen or whatever.

Doc.

Well, you can call it BS, I don't. I drove 1500 miles this week, and more than once my vision was impaired by dust, glare, oversized vehicles, several deer and even a swarm of locusts that splattered my windshield. At freeway speeds, it takes only a second of confusion to close the gap when a truck unexpectedly pulls into your path.

I guess you can blame the car driver or the car's software, but what about the truck driver that pulled into the path of the car which was approaching at high speed? A lot of blame rests on the trucker's shoulders.

As I've said before, I'll gladly ride in the Google self driving car. My buddy works at Stanford and has had a lot of exposure to the cars and the people working on the program. I'd trust it much more than I would my 84 year old mother, and she's certified to be a competent driver by the state of Oregon.

Dan

[PStechPaul]

Autonomous vehicles might be good for delivery trucks and mail carriers, which is a lot of stop-and-go. Also maybe for congested rush hour conditions where driving is also largely stop-and-go or low speed, and where drivers tend to be stressed or more likely to play with cell phones or other distractions. The downside might be if some drivers learn how to "game" the self-driving cars into swerving or stopping and thus allowing them to drive more aggressively through spots that open up for them due to avoidance maneuvers.

[CarlByrns]

-Bullsh*t. The driver was- had to have been- not paying attention. Either he had simply laid his head back and was listening to music, or he'd actually fallen asleep like that one fellow somebody got pictures of a few weeks ago. Or he was reading a book, or playing with his phone or tablet, or screwing with the car's dash screen or whatever.

There is no possible way the truck was lit just right as to appear invisible to anyone that was even paying a minimal amount of attention.

I disagree- Tesla says their Autopilot looks for driver presence- hands on the steering wheel, ect. and will reduce speed if it detects the driver is not awake/aware.

I'm not a fan of self driving cars (hell, I don't even like automatic transmissions) but the numbers don't lie: their collisions-per-mile are almost nonexistent.

Given the circumstances, this accident would have likely happened with or without electronic intervention. Just one of those things.

[J Tiers]

"All your cars are belong to us"...? You simply tell it where you want to go.

It's the endpoint of this, it will be essentially inevitable IF the idea is to have self-driving cars ONLY.

And as a sort of taxi-type service I see nothing wrong with that. But I buy a car, it's going where I want it to, absent a law that says it can't (like drive on correct side of road, traffic lights, one way streets, no parking, etc, etc, etc).
Seems like there will have to be the option of a driver-guided vehicle, but perhaps not allowed in the central pollution-free zone, like London, etc.